Trans activists: Trans women should not be required to suppress testosterone to play on women's teams

[ruby sparks]

It is an impression driven by you having circled back around to the assumption that the distinguishing attribute of a transgender person must be an element of neurological function. Happy to be wrong

Good. Be happy in that case, because there being at least an element of brain function involved (which I would assert) is so not the same as saying 'fully controlled by our brains'.

Similarly I would say that brain function (or brain states, or brain differences) have at least a partial causal effect on matters (both gender identity and things such as career/work choices for example) without saying that of themselves, they sufficiently explains things.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Some people appear to have been either fixated on them (whatever they are) or arbitrarily limiting themselves to them, that's all. And quite honestly, I personally am continuously baffled, because I think I cited things like brain chemicals very near the start of my posting in the thread, which I think was very near the start of the thread itself.

I already provided the quoted section where metaphor's question arose. That's the question to which toni replied. That's the exchange to which I have been referring. The only difference is I said neurological where toni said brain.

 

[Emily Lake]

Mmm... not sure here. If the argument being made is that there's an inherent quality of mind that determines gender, then I think you do actually have to be able to demonstrate that there's a difference in underlying structure or functionality that cannot be attributed to environmental factors acting on brain plasticity.

If an argument is being made that A is a cause of B, then you do have to demonstrate that A is causal as opposed to correlational.

I did not, and neither did several others, as far as I can recall, ever argue that 'neurological structures' (whatever they are) are causal. It's that simple.

Some people appear to have been either fixated on them (whatever they are) or arbitrarily limiting themselves to them, that's all. And quite honestly, I personally am continuously baffled, because I think I cited things like brain chemicals very near the start of my posting in the thread, which I think was very near the start of the thread itself.

Consider it shorthand. I include sex-differentiated chemicals and hormones in the bucket of "innate characteristics and brain structure and functioning".

Really shoddy analogy here... Male and Female pelvises are different. They're shaped differently from the get-go. That difference in shape causes a difference in gait - females walk differently than males as a result of their pelvises being shaped differently. Wearing heels also causes a different gait, and generally speaking females wear heels far more often than males do. But a male who wears heels a lot will develop a gait that is more similar to that of a female than to that of a male, because that exposure alters how his ligaments, tendons, and muscles interact. If a truly androgynous person walks past you, you might notice that their gait is very like that of a female. And you might be able to label it "female style walking". But the reason for the gait is different between the two cases. One is caused by the person being female, the other is an effect of a different action that is correlated with females but is not actually caused by being female.

In the vast majority of cases, the cause is unimportant. At best, it's a curiosity about how humans work. But in the rare instance where you're looking for someone with a great walk to model ladies undergarments... the presence or absence of a penis might be important .

 

[Toni]

To try to return to the main topic of this thread, I posted upthread links to several articles about differences in brain structure between the brains of (cis) males and (cis) women, with trans individuals showing brain structures similar to the sex they believe they truly are. In other words, there seems to be some biological/physical evidence that suggests an explanation for this variation on sex/gender/genetics.

I am not certain why this would be controversial. Doctors and parents routinely note physical characteristics of genitalia of newborns and the child is almost always then considered whatever sex matches the genitalia. Sometimes, genitalia is ambiguous and further investigation and consultation must be made to determine the child's sex and gender. Sometimes, an infant is apparently male or female and yet retains inside the body ovaries or testes belonging to the opposite sex from what they were believed to be and how they were raised. This has medical implications as well as social and psychological implications and consequences for the child/adult.

I don't understand why some people continue to deny transsexual's identity and need to make their body match their brain or their feelings of extreme discomfort, gender dysmorphia and emotional well being as there is evidence that supports that while gross anatomical characteristics which are obvious at birth may be different than anatomical differences that are also present at birth but are contained within the structure of the skull, making them undetectable to the naked eye.

We assume sex based on one aspect of anatomy: genitalia and are fine with that. Why should we ignore the evidence that a brain scan might provide to support the child's identification as male or female? Both are physical structures. One set is easily discernible to the naked eye. The other requires specialized testing to reveal the contents of a skull. But both are anatomical differences between male and female.

 

[ruby sparks]

You're doing it too, and have been throughout. Where does thing requirement for something to be 'innate' (whatever that is) come into it? It doesn't, surely?

It comes into it in the broader concept of social justice and acceptance, as well as medical treatment.

Let's step a bit sideways, knowing that this is purposefully leaning toward an absurd example. But I think it might help illustrate why nature versus nurture comes into this discussion.

Let's talk about race. Specifically about black and white Americans. There's a measurable difference in outcomes on the basis of race in the US. And there's a substantial amount of evidence for differences in the lived experience within society of black people compared to white people. There are significant differences in how people are treated, how they are perceived to be likely to act, and what is expected of them on the basis of skin color. It's a thing, and nobody thinks it's not a thing.

Historically, people believed that the differences were natural. That black people were just by nature, inferior. They were believed to be less intelligent, less capable, and more aggressive and violent. That belief presents a very real social barrier to black people in the US. But there hasn't been any solid evidence to support the argument that there is an inherent, innate, natural difference between black people and white people that sufficiently explains the observed differences in experience and outcomes.

Now, however, there's been an upsurge in people who identify as transracial. They are white people (sometimes mixed people) who identify as black. There are also some black (or mixed) people who identify as white. For the most part, it doesn't make any difference, nobody cares what race you identify as. Dress however you want, hang out with whoever you want, etc. Surround yourself with people that you resonate with and feel comfortable with. But, because there has been such a well-documented history of disparity on the basis of race, there are also some social systems in place that are aimed at addressing that issue and providing a more equitable experience to black people. And to the extent that a person may claim they are transblack, there is an expectation that they would have access to scholarships and educational grants set up for black students. There's an expectation that they would fulfill a company's affirmative action requirements for diversity by being classified as black. For people who are mixed, or who are "dark enough", there's a fair bit of acceptance, and not a lot of push-back. For people who look like a comic-book version of a Swede, however, there's a bit more skepticism.

Now, into this hot-bed of mixed objectives and potential conflicts of objectives... someone comes along and says that there are differences in the brains of black people and white people, and that transracial people's brains are closer, in some few aspects, to the brains of the race their identify with than to the race they were assigned at birth.

Because of the impact of this on black people as well as transracial people, the question of causality does become fairly important. If there is an innate root cause - something in the brain of that transracial person that definitively supports their identity as black, then that ends up meaning that there's a real and material difference in the brains of black people compared to white people that is not the result of their lived experience and conditioning. There's also, however, a whole lot of risk that such differences, no matter how immaterial to outcomes, could be used to justify and rationalize the continuance of disparate treatment on the basis of race. On the other hand, if those differences are not innate, but are the result of external exposures and brain plasiticity, then that jeopardizes the strides that transracial people are making toward their own recognition and acceptance.

The question of nature or nurture (or both and to what extent), then, ends up being a fairly important question for both black people and for transracial people... and there's opportunity for antagonists to abuse that information on either side.

For most reasonable and well-intentioned people, it's not a big deal one way or the other, because we treat people with respect and dignity regardless of their race or gender or what color socks they wear. We care about behavior and actions, and we're simply not judgy about people's personal lives. But not everyone is a reasonable well-intentioned person, and even if it's a relatively small number of people, misogynists do actually exist. And sadly, there also exit a very few transgender people who are bad actors across the board. No answer is going to make everyone happy, every solution has the potential to dislocate someone, and every solution opens the door to some abusers of that solution.

Fine. But I have no idea why you are telling me all that.

Go back to what (I think) we agree on regarding the original and main issue, transgender, and apply it to the racial example above. The issues seem very similar. A trans black person (assuming a genuine, non-confused, persistently problematic case) is only black in terms of their identity, not their body (if that is white). As such, they should not automatically get to do or have the things that people whose bodies and identities are black (with the caveats we both agree on regarding assessing on a case by case basis).

I think you are conflating two things. The first is what I am going to call the facts, and the other is what the societal implications of them are. If we agree that a trans woman for example is only a female in gender terms (but is really, actually that) and not in other terms, we have the basis to both (a) accept the fact of her gender (but not her bodily physiology otherwise) and (b) make the practical distinctions we need to when deciding to agree whether they get to use the women's showers (or get a college grant in the case of your example above).

I don't see the need to say that they are not 'really' female. They really are, in gender terms, but maybe not in other terms.

 

[ruby sparks]

Some people appear to have been either fixated on them (whatever they are) or arbitrarily limiting themselves to them, that's all. And quite honestly, I personally am continuously baffled, because I think I cited things like brain chemicals very near the start of my posting in the thread, which I think was very near the start of the thread itself.

I already provided the quoted section where metaphor's question arose. That's the question to which toni replied. That's the exchange to which I have been referring. The only difference is I said neurological where toni said brain.

Did metaphor say 'structures'? I don't think he did. I recall him saying 'differences' (systematic differences in one case) and 'states'. If that's the case, and I stand to be corrected, you, and toni, understood the question wrong. For my part, I'm pretty sure I never said 'structures'.

Plus, I think it should have been obvious as the exchanges went on that brain structures (whatever they are meant to be) would only be one relevant aspect of a brain system anyway.

By the way, just out of curiosity, what do you mean by brain structures? The sorts of things that fmri scans show? Those are structured patterns, yes, but as far as I know they measure the flow of blood.

The brain is a fluid, plastic and dynamic system. I see no point in only referring to the supposedly 'fixed' parts when asking if brain differences are causal.

 

[ruby sparks]

Mmm... not sure here. If the argument being made is that there's an inherent quality of mind that determines gender, then I think you do actually have to be able to demonstrate that there's a difference in underlying structure or functionality that cannot be attributed to environmental factors acting on brain plasticity.

If an argument is being made that A is a cause of B, then you do have to demonstrate that A is causal as opposed to correlational.

I did not, and neither did several others, as far as I can recall, ever argue that 'neurological structures' (whatever they are) are causal. It's that simple.

Some people appear to have been either fixated on them (whatever they are) or arbitrarily limiting themselves to them, that's all. And quite honestly, I personally am continuously baffled, because I think I cited things like brain chemicals very near the start of my posting in the thread, which I think was very near the start of the thread itself.

Consider it shorthand. I include sex-differentiated chemicals and hormones in the bucket of "innate characteristics and brain structure and functioning".

Really shoddy analogy here... Male and Female pelvises are different. They're shaped differently from the get-go. That difference in shape causes a difference in gait - females walk differently than males as a result of their pelvises being shaped differently. Wearing heels also causes a different gait, and generally speaking females wear heels far more often than males do. But a male who wears heels a lot will develop a gait that is more similar to that of a female than to that of a male, because that exposure alters how his ligaments, tendons, and muscles interact. If a truly androgynous person walks past you, you might notice that their gait is very like that of a female. And you might be able to label it "female style walking". But the reason for the gait is different between the two cases. One is caused by the person being female, the other is an effect of a different action that is correlated with females but is not actually caused by being female.

In the vast majority of cases, the cause is unimportant. At best, it's a curiosity about how humans work. But in the rare instance where you're looking for someone with a great walk to model ladies undergarments... the presence or absence of a penis might be important .

All good. No disagreement here.

But we are not talking about the equivalent of high heels when we talk of brain chemicals, are we?

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Some people appear to have been either fixated on them (whatever they are) or arbitrarily limiting themselves to them, that's all. And quite honestly, I personally am continuously baffled, because I think I cited things like brain chemicals very near the start of my posting in the thread, which I think was very near the start of the thread itself.

I already provided the quoted section where metaphor's question arose. That's the question to which toni replied. That's the exchange to which I have been referring. The only difference is I said neurological where toni said brain.

Did metaphor say 'structures'? I don't think he did. I recall him saying 'differences' (systematic differences in one case) and 'states'. If that's the case, and I stand to be corrected, you, and toni, understood the question wrong.

Toni said it. The question metaphor asked was in reference to toni's statements (which were directly quoted the first time the question was asked).

Plus, I think it should have been obvious as the exchanges went on that brain structures (whatever they are meant to be) would only be one relevant aspect of a brain system anyway.

I don't understand why you keep saying 'whatever they are meant to be'. Structures that make up the brain. Structures that pertain to neurology. Like the parietal lobe or the prefrontal cortex or the amygdala or their base components or the structures which they themselves make up. It's plain English.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

The brain is a fluid, plastic and dynamic system. I see no point in only referring to the supposedly 'fixed' parts when asking if brain differences are causal.

Which is consistent with what I have been saying.

 

[Emily Lake]

Example: I take SSRIs for my depression. As you probably know, these are intended (it's in the name) to selectively inhibit the reuptake (back into the presynaptic cell) of serotonin molecules between the synapses of (in the synaptic cleft between) my neurons, so as to keep them circulating in my brain (in the cleft to be precise), so that more of them bond to certain receptors on the other side of the synapse (called postsynaptic cells). Whether that's what actually happens or is what modifies my mood, I don't know but I'm setting that aside.

Now, if we are asking "is my depression a brain condition", we would not restrict ourselves to the 'neurological structures' (whatever they are meant to be) and discount the serotonin molecules, would we?

No... but we might question whether the uptake issue is a result of a genetic condition that affected your brain (some depression runs in families) or whether it was caused by overuse of a recreational drug. It won't necessarily change the treatment, but it might be relevant to other things our doctor should know

 

[ruby sparks]

The brain is a fluid, plastic and dynamic system. I see no point in only referring to the supposedly 'fixed' parts when asking if brain differences are causal.

Which is consistent with what I have been saying.

Interest is a direct result of brain states and neurotransmitters. What else could it be? So, when two people have differing interests, it is a difference caused by their brain states and neurotransmitters. If two sexes have differing interests, it is a difference caused by their brain states and neurotransmitters. Interests influence career choice. Career choice influences wage and salary income.

This is a very equivocal line of reasoning. It's a sort of lazy, sci-fi "and then quantum mechanics shit happened or something" kind of explanation of things. Saying neurotransmitters are involved really says very little about sex differentiation in neurology and links to specific behaviours or outcomes in social matters.

There. That was put to you quite a way back. And it clearly was not about "structures". So I have no idea why you carried on as if it was.

 

[Toni]

Some people appear to have been either fixated on them (whatever they are) or arbitrarily limiting themselves to them, that's all. And quite honestly, I personally am continuously baffled, because I think I cited things like brain chemicals very near the start of my posting in the thread, which I think was very near the start of the thread itself.

I already provided the quoted section where metaphor's question arose. That's the question to which toni replied. That's the exchange to which I have been referring. The only difference is I said neurological where toni said brain.

Did metaphor say 'structures'? I don't think he did. I recall him saying 'differences' (systematic differences in one case) and 'states'. If that's the case, and I stand to be corrected, you, and toni, understood the question wrong. For my part, I'm pretty sure I never said 'structures'.

Plus, I think it should have been obvious as the exchanges went on that brain structures (whatever they are meant to be) would only be one relevant aspect of a brain system anyway.

By the way, just out of curiosity, what do you mean by brain structures? The sorts of things that fmri scans show? Those are structured patterns, yes, but as far as I know they measure the flow of blood.

The brain is a fluid, plastic and dynamic system. I see no point in only referring to the supposedly 'fixed' parts when asking if brain differences are causal.

Neither Krypton iodine sulfur or I misunderstood Metaphor's question.

 

[ruby sparks]

Example: I take SSRIs for my depression. As you probably know, these are intended (it's in the name) to selectively inhibit the reuptake (back into the presynaptic cell) of serotonin molecules between the synapses of (in the synaptic cleft between) my neurons, so as to keep them circulating in my brain (in the cleft to be precise), so that more of them bond to certain receptors on the other side of the synapse (called postsynaptic cells). Whether that's what actually happens or is what modifies my mood, I don't know but I'm setting that aside.

Now, if we are asking "is my depression a brain condition", we would not restrict ourselves to the 'neurological structures' (whatever they are meant to be) and discount the serotonin molecules, would we?

No... but we might question whether the uptake issue is a result of a genetic condition that affected your brain (some depression runs in families) or whether it was caused by overuse of a recreational drug. It won't necessarily change the treatment, but it might be relevant to other things our doctor should know

Sure. But personally I'm blue in the face saying that things do not have to be inherited (or in the form of fixed structures either). To me, those are just unnecessary restrictions when analysing the matter and looking for explanations and causes.

In other words, if a person is genuinely trans because of, say, something that has to do with early brain plasticity, they are still really, actually female in gender terms, are they not?

So yet again I'm wondering what your point is.

 

[Toni]

Mmm... not sure here. If the argument being made is that there's an inherent quality of mind that determines gender, then I think you do actually have to be able to demonstrate that there's a difference in underlying structure or functionality that cannot be attributed to environmental factors acting on brain plasticity.

If an argument is being made that A is a cause of B, then you do have to demonstrate that A is causal as opposed to correlational.

I did not, and neither did several others, as far as I can recall, ever argue that 'neurological structures' (whatever they are) are causal. It's that simple.

Some people appear to have been either fixated on them (whatever they are) or arbitrarily limiting themselves to them, that's all. And quite honestly, I personally am continuously baffled, because I think I cited things like brain chemicals very near the start of my posting in the thread, which I think was very near the start of the thread itself.

Consider it shorthand. I include sex-differentiated chemicals and hormones in the bucket of "innate characteristics and brain structure and functioning".

Really shoddy analogy here... Male and Female pelvises are different. They're shaped differently from the get-go. That difference in shape causes a difference in gait - females walk differently than males as a result of their pelvises being shaped differently. Wearing heels also causes a different gait, and generally speaking females wear heels far more often than males do. But a male who wears heels a lot will develop a gait that is more similar to that of a female than to that of a male, because that exposure alters how his ligaments, tendons, and muscles interact. If a truly androgynous person walks past you, you might notice that their gait is very like that of a female. And you might be able to label it "female style walking". But the reason for the gait is different between the two cases. One is caused by the person being female, the other is an effect of a different action that is correlated with females but is not actually caused by being female.

In the vast majority of cases, the cause is unimportant. At best, it's a curiosity about how humans work. But in the rare instance where you're looking for someone with a great walk to model ladies undergarments... the presence or absence of a penis might be important .

In most cultures in the world and for most of the world, women have not worn high heels. In fact, many still are barefoot most of the time. When high heels were first invented, they were worn by MEN, not women.

When looking for someone to wear clothing intended to be worn by females, particularly undergarments, the presence of a penis would be significant.

 

[Emily Lake]

To try to return to the main topic of this thread, I posted upthread links to several articles about differences in brain structure between the brains of (cis) males and (cis) women, with trans individuals showing brain structures similar to the sex they believe they truly are. In other words, there seems to be some biological/physical evidence that suggests an explanation for this variation on sex/gender/genetics.

I am not certain why this would be controversial.

It's not controversial so much as it's not conclusive. At present, the differences that have been found are small, and most of them are correlated with skull size, not with sex. Once the difference in size of head is taken into account, the observed differences are statistically insignificant.

Of those that persist they aren't strong enough differences to be predictive. If we're looking at a bunch of brains, we can sort them and say "this one is more like those than like these", but if you look at a brain by itself, the differences aren't clear enough to say "this is a male brain" or "this is a female brain". Consider it like shoe size. If you're looking at a bunch of feet, and you know whether the foot holder is male or female, you can observe that male feet are bigger than female feet. And you might be able to see that the feet of transgender people tend to be smaller than the average male foot, and thus fall into the range for female feet. But if you don't know if a person is cis or trans, you're no going to be able to tell if they have a small foot for a male, or a large foot for a female.

Additionally, the majority of the findings so far are observable, but aren't necessarily causal. We can't tell if the difference is an innate element of the brain built by genetics, or if it's the result of environmental factors, conditioning, exposure, etc. They don't account for brain plasiticity.

There might ultimately be meaningful differences that cause the gender-sex mismatch. At present, research along those lines is interesting... but not conclusive.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Interest is a direct result of brain states and neurotransmitters. What else could it be? So, when two people have differing interests, it is a difference caused by their brain states and neurotransmitters. If two sexes have differing interests, it is a difference caused by their brain states and neurotransmitters. Interests influence career choice. Career choice influences wage and salary income.

This is a very equivocal line of reasoning. It's a sort of lazy, sci-fi "and then quantum mechanics shit happened or something" kind of explanation of things. Saying neurotransmitters are involved really says very little about sex differentiation in neurology and links to specific behaviours or outcomes in social matters.

There. That was put to you quite a way back. And it clearly was not about "structures". So I have no idea why you carried on as if it was.

I didn't act as if it was. The whole point was specifically that it wasn't. That was my point. That is why I was saying he was being equivocal. His question was phrased roughly as 'if you believe A then what about B'. A was sex differentiated brain structures. So why then was metaphor shifting that?

You clearly don't understand what was happening in that exchange.

 

[Emily Lake]

Fine. But I have no idea why you are telling me all that.

...

I don't see the need to say that they are not 'really' female. They really are, in gender terms, but maybe not in other terms.

I told you all of that because you asked:

You're doing it too, and have been throughout. Where does thing requirement for something to be 'innate' (whatever that is) come into it? It doesn't, surely?

It becomes important to the extent that the claim to a gender grants access to certain services or not. You and I might be in agreement, but a lot of people are not in agreement. The people who disagree on those items - either by insisting that all of them must be allowed or that all of them must be forbidden - use the innateness or lack thereof as part of their argument.

It also becomes important with respect to secondary uses. For example, the existence of innate, non-nurture differences could very feasibly be used by misogynists to continue the disparate treatment of women (including transwomen) in society. On the other hand, the lack of innate, non-nurture differences could feasibly be used by anti-trans activists to inhibit the recognition of transgender people and to infringe upon their rights.

It's not about "really female" at all. It's about nature versus nurture, and the extent to which 'nature' can become a political leveraging tool. It's about whether nature governs certain rights, or excuses certain treatment.

 

[Emily Lake]

All good. No disagreement here.

But we are not talking about the equivalent of high heels when we talk of brain chemicals, are we?

No, not talking about high heels. It was just an illustration of causation versus correlation.

High heel brain chemicals sound painful to be honest.

 

[Emily Lake]

Sure. But personally I'm blue in the face saying that things do not have to be inherited (or in the form of fixed structures either). To me, those are just unnecessary restrictions when analysing the matter and looking for explanations and causes.

In other words, if a person is genuinely trans because of, say, something that has to do with early brain plasticity, they are still really, actually female in gender terms, are they not?

So yet again I'm wondering what your point is.

Two reasons.

First, the cause may change the treatment. If the cause of my epilepsy was a brain tumor or brain trauma, I probably wouldn't be treated with anti-seizure drugs alone. Right now, transitioning is the treatment that works best, and it doesn't work equally well for each person. If we knew the cause, there might be different treatments available, or at least, we might look for other treatments for different causes that might be more effective and less invasive for those causes.

Second, as mentioned, there's a high level of risk that bad actors could abuse research based on "nature" differences to justify existing disadvantages in treatment of people.

 

[Metaphor]

No one is saying there aren't behavioural differences between men and women in general. That doesn't mean they are the result of intrinsic sexualized aspects of our neurology. They could be wholly the byproduct of social conditioning or some other variable.

That something is the 'byproduct of social conditioning' is 100% irrelevant to the argument. Any brain is subject to social conditioning, including the brains used as evidence that there is a difference in the brains of males and females.